Habush law firm loses privacy claim appeal over Internet key words

The state Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld the dismissal of a right to privacy claim filed by one personal injury law firm against a competitor over its purchase of the plaintiffs' names as search engine key words to bring up ads for the competitors' firm.

Habush, Habush & Rottier made national news in 2009 when it sued Cannon & Dunphy. The two firms are the largest personal injury practices in Wisconsin.

The Cannon firm had paid to have three major Internet search engines turn up sponsored ads for Cannon & Dunphy whenever users searched on Habush or Rottier. The ads, clearly marked as sponsored, appeared above or near hits for Habush, Habush & Rottier that came up from the organic search.

Habush sued under the novel theory that the practice violated his right to privacy. In ruling for Cannon, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Charles Kahn found the practice the modern equivalent of lawyers buying Yellow Pages ads next to other lawyers' listings.

“While our analysis differs, we agree with what we understand to be court’s pivotal reasoning – that the use of the names here is different in kind from the type of use the statute is intended to cover,” wrote Judge Paul Lundsten for a three-judge panel.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear the case when the Court of Appeals first certified it to the high court last year, which then led to Thursday's ruling from the appeals court.

Ric Gass, the attorney who defended Cannon & Dunphy, said the decision "effectively brings attorney advertising into the modern era."

"The decision is win-win-win; a win for our client’s ability to effectively compete in an open marketplace; a win for the legal profession in terms of its ability to communicate with prospective clients; and a win for consumers of legal services, who now are better able to make an informed decision about their choice of lawyer," Gass said in a preparted statement.

Tha Habush firm released this satement:

"We are obviously disappointed with this decision and expect to request review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court."

INTERACTIVE: This interactive provides a detailed look at the current term of the U.S. Supreme Court, including summaries of major cases, profiles of the justices, and legal alignments based on past decisions.